corection qt is open source but gtk has no restrictions on use

Ed Cogburn edcogburn at
Sat Jul 23 17:46:33 UTC 2005

azz wrote:

> My name is Andrew and I am a Qt basher.  *Bows Head*
> My point was just the opposite of what you said.  I guess I should have
> been clearer.  I strongly beleive that there is an important advantage
> to offering software under the GPL as opposed to a BSD licence.

But you started out by saying "GTK defines itself by it's freedom more than
Qt does", clearly implying the LGPL was better than the GPL?

> It is a stonger commitment to the freedom of your code to do so.  If
> you offer your same code under a second licence, it is sort of like
> cheating on your wife. Are you interested in it being free and serving 
> the goals of free and open software or do you want to protect your own
> interests?  In a way you cannot have it both ways.

Sure you can.  Maybe it would surprise you to know that Trolltech is using
the GPL instead of another free license because.... they want to protect
their own interests!  When any company gets involved in free software as a
developer of that software, and a seller of that software and/or services
related to that software, it is in their interest to dual license because
the free license won't help them attract business customers.  The business
customers want strong support-after-the-sell, which is, *by necessity*,
non-existent in free licenses.  The GPL proves their commitment to Free
Software, while their commercial license proves their commitment to their
paying customers.  You're arguing, in fact, against a very fundamental
premise of the Open Source concept, that free software can be business
friendly as well.  Trolltech is not the only company to dual license this
way, MySql is another example off the top of my head.

> So, back to Qt.  I am not saying they should not use the GPL, I am
> saying they should exclusively use the GPL.

And give up their ability to make money?  If that was their only option,
guess what they would have done?  They would have done what most of the
world still does:  not open-sourced their software at all.  Now obviously
that outcome wouldn't have bothered you, but on behalf of all the people
out there who've come to the conclusion by experimentation that Qt is a
quality piece of work, superior IMHO, to the other options out there, I for
one am glad Trolltech had the option and foresight to dual license, because
I can now use Qt, and they can still make money, which allows them to keep
making Qt better.

BTW, how does releasing under another license in *any* way take away from
the GPL?  Its still the GPL, and that software is still just as Free as any
other GPL'd software.  Logically, by dual licensing, you're making the
software MORE free because its now accessible in more than one way.

What's strange about your argument is that on the one hand you're
anti-OpenSource for rejecting dual-licensing, and simultaneously
anti-FreeSoftware for suggesting the LGPL is better than the GPL, so I
suspect that both of those camps in this philosophical divide have a
problem with your argument.  :)

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list